4 ms·

It's also COMPLETELY WRONG. Charlie Munger has said several times that the NUMBER ONE thing you should do to solve complicated problems is HAVE A CHECKLIST OF M

It's also COMPLETELY WRONG. Charlie Munger has said several times that the NUMBER ONE thing you should do to solve complicated problems is HAVE A CHECKLIST OF MENTAL MODELS AND USE IT WITHOUT EXCEPTION. So this guy is obviously making crap up. Buffet's business partner is the guy who wrote the fucking book on making investments and problem solving this way.

shadowsun7 6y ago
Cool. Have you done so successfully? I have bought and read nearly every book about Charlie Munger. My conclusion is that 'have a checklist of mental models' is how he says he does what he does. He reasons a lot by analogy to things he's seen or read before, or to ideas in other fields. This does not mean it is the core of his expertise. The second nuance is that checklisting works better in 'wicked' fields of expertise (I'm using the definition from Hogarth et all, 2015 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721415591878 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721415591878). Stockpicking is one of those. If you are attempting to gain expertise in a field that isn't wicked, well ... good luck improving by having a checklist of mental models.
- yuleterm 6y ago
  That wasn't the point. The response isn't pro-model model or anti-model. The point is the author is saying things that are factually, obviously incorrect. If they'd done even a marginal amount of homework, they wouldn't be claiming "Buffet does this or Buffet does that" when all public information and statements about this exact topic point to the contrary. It signals intellectual laziness at best and willful lying at worst.
  - shadowsun7 6y ago
    I am the author. I've read multiple biographies of Buffett, I've read criticisms of his approach, and I've read Hagstrom's book on Focused Portfolios (which Munger said was the most representative of what they were doing). I have attempted to emulate Buffett in the past. It is difficult. Hagstrom failed as well, rather publicly, with his mutual funds. I've begun to see Buffett not as a stock picker, as he hasn't really done such plays over the past decade or so. Rather, he is a capital allocator in the true sense of the word: he buys companies with high FCF, and reinvests the FCF in either stock if he finds an underpriced opportunity, or ownership of private companies if he does not. In the previous decade, he has mostly done the latter, as it has become more and more difficult to generate alpha in the former. He has also been willing to enter into advantageous contracts (warrants, etc) in times of economic turmoil. I have demonstrated some understanding of the topic. Now my question to you is this: are you as well read on this as I am? If so, point me to a chapter in one of the biographies and I will self correct.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      That's all very interesting and does show that you're well familiar with the topic at hand. Which only makes me more skeptical of the fact that you have said nothing to back up your original assertion.

shadowsun7 6y ago

Cool. Have you done so successfully? I have bought and read nearly every book about Charlie Munger. My conclusion is that 'have a checklist of mental models' is how he says he does what he does. He reasons a lot by analogy to things he's seen or read before, or to ideas in other fields. This does not mean it is the core of his expertise. The second nuance is that checklisting works better in 'wicked' fields of expertise (I'm using the definition from Hogarth et all, 2015 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721415591878 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721415591878). Stockpicking is one of those. If you are attempting to gain expertise in a field that isn't wicked, well ... good luck improving by having a checklist of mental models.

yuleterm 6y ago
That wasn't the point. The response isn't pro-model model or anti-model. The point is the author is saying things that are factually, obviously incorrect. If they'd done even a marginal amount of homework, they wouldn't be claiming "Buffet does this or Buffet does that" when all public information and statements about this exact topic point to the contrary. It signals intellectual laziness at best and willful lying at worst.
- shadowsun7 6y ago
  I am the author. I've read multiple biographies of Buffett, I've read criticisms of his approach, and I've read Hagstrom's book on Focused Portfolios (which Munger said was the most representative of what they were doing). I have attempted to emulate Buffett in the past. It is difficult. Hagstrom failed as well, rather publicly, with his mutual funds. I've begun to see Buffett not as a stock picker, as he hasn't really done such plays over the past decade or so. Rather, he is a capital allocator in the true sense of the word: he buys companies with high FCF, and reinvests the FCF in either stock if he finds an underpriced opportunity, or ownership of private companies if he does not. In the previous decade, he has mostly done the latter, as it has become more and more difficult to generate alpha in the former. He has also been willing to enter into advantageous contracts (warrants, etc) in times of economic turmoil. I have demonstrated some understanding of the topic. Now my question to you is this: are you as well read on this as I am? If so, point me to a chapter in one of the biographies and I will self correct.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    That's all very interesting and does show that you're well familiar with the topic at hand. Which only makes me more skeptical of the fact that you have said nothing to back up your original assertion.